Prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication in the documents submitted for property mutation led to the revival of the charge against the respondent under IPC sections 420/467/468/471.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

Petitioner impugns judgment dated 13.03.2015 whereby the revisional court has set aside the order on charge dated 17.11.2014 whereby the charge was framed by the trial court against respondent no. 2 under Section 420/467/468/471 of the IPC and the respondent no. 2 was discharged.

2. Petitioner- Original Complainants have impugned the said order inter-alia on the ground that no notice under Section 401 Cr. P.C. was issued to them prior to the Revisional Court passing an order which was averse to their interests. Secondly the petitioner impugns the order contending that the order on charge was an order on correct appreciation of documents and other material and evidence and the statements of witnesses which were filed along with the charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court, inter-alia, erred in not appreciating the fact that the documents which were submitted by respondent no. 2 for the purpose of mutation were ex-facie forged and the FSL report had clearly indicated that the same were not signed by the petitioners.

4. It is contended that respondent no. 2 had applied for mutation of the property left behind by the deceased father exclusive in his name and induced the corporation into mutating the same in his name to the exclusion of the petitioner and other legal heirs and it constituted an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that no offence of cheating or forgery is made out against the petitioner. He submits that the revisional court had rightly set aside the order of the trial court holding that no complaint had been made by the municipal corporation which is alleged to have been induced for mutating the property in favour of the respondent no. 2. Further it is contended that prosecution has failed to establish that it was respondent no. 2 who had forged or used any forged document. Further it is contended that no benefit has been obtained by respondent no. 2 as mutation does not create any title but only determines as to who is liable to pay property tax. He further contends that the order on mutation was with regard to payment of tax and does not create any right in favour of respondent no. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC(Cri) 929" to contend that the condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 IPC is forgery. He submits that none of the ingredients of the said Sections are prima facie satisfied and as no such charge could have been framed against the said respondent under Section 467 and 471 IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent further relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'Jibrial Diwan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) AIR SC 3424'; to contend that where there is no wrongful gain, intention cannot be said to be dishonest or fraudulent and as such basic ingredients of the charge under Section 471 IPC is not satisfied.

8. Learned Addl. PP supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the trial court had correctly framed the charge and the Revisional Court committed an error.

9. Learned Addl. PP submits that the certain documents had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination and the report was received from the FSL after the impugned order was passed and as such the same could not be brought to the notice of the revisional court. Learned Addl. PP submits that the FSL report confirms that the signatures of some of the legal heirs on the no objection submitted for the purposes of mutation did not match and the signatures of respondent no. 2/accused on the said document matches.

10. The original documents submitted for mutation have been produced by learned Addl. PP and also some of the original documents are part of the trial court record, digital copy of the same have been placed